Talk:Panama Railway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Latin America Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Central America, which collaborates on articles related to Central America. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Should be renamed Panama Railroad

The terms railroad and railway are synonims, the former used in the United States, the latter in Britain. The Panama Railroad was American-built. Its builders were not likely to use the term railway.

(I don't know who that was; it wasn't signed)

Agreed. In point of fact the official name of the entity during the American tenure in Panama was indeed "Panama Railroad." HiramShadraski 18:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just had a look and there appears to have been a redirect/alias back in December 2003—which seems to have served quite well in that time. The name of the current operating company/organisation uses Railway, so I'm be tempted to leave the article as is—the railway is not controlled by the United States anymore, so to force a rename with US-nomenclature could potentially be considered politically insensitive to local naming practice. —Sladen (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Panama Railroad as a "Transcontinental" Railroad

The Panama Railroad as used in "transcontinental" travel between New York and San Francisco before 1869 constituted only a very small portion (between Aspinwall and Panama City) of the entire ticketed passage which was offered by the North American Steamship Company prior to the completion of the Pacific Railroad with the vast majority of the trip being made over water by steamer. When opened on January 28, 1855, the railroad was actually referred to as the "Inter-Oceanic" railroad. Making the "claim" that a line just 48 miles long constitutes a "transcontinental" railroad does not comport with how the term is customarily used or understood. (One of the references that you cite was in fact written by me and uses the term "claim" to indicate that this view is hardly an absolute.) Using this logic, a railroad running from Miami, FL, on the Atlantic Ocean to Tampa, FL, on the Gulf of Mexico could also be described as a "transcontinental" railroad as well which would, I think, be quite misleading. I have been studying and writing extensively and professionally about this subject for more than ten years, have read (and own original copies of) a great many of the primary source materials (images of some which I have now posted in the article), and have given this topic a great deal of study and thought. I restructured the introduction to this article very carefully to accurately reflect what is contained in those materials. (Centpacrr (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

Greetings, thank you for your work on the article. I, myself, did not add the terminology "transcontinental"; having found references for it, it seems rude to the original contributor to dispute it. I added four references (the first page of WP:GHITS from Google). Perhaps the opening paragraph can be switched to using "inter-oceanic" and a discussion can be added further down the article regarding "transcontinental" and the later related railways/routes performing a similar rôle (with a {{main|Transcontinental railroad}}).

I'm currently trying to work out if I can phrase "Although its grade ..." in a different manner; to me, the "although ... only" imparts a slightly derogatory meaning—48miles was a large achievement when built and is perhaps equivlant to something like the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (108km) built recently. Do you have any feeling on a good alternative for "grade"; it is a technical term and maybe unfamiliar to those reading the opening-line, perhaps "route" or "length" would be more appropriate. Outside of US terminology grade_(slope), refers to vertical climb/angle, not distance! Once again, thank you for your edits to bring up the quality of the article. —Sladen (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I used the expression "Although its grade....only 48 miles.." not as a slight as to the difficulty of building the road (which was very considerable), but to relate it to the length of the New York to San Francisco transcontinental route which is more than fifty times longer. Also the term "grade" has two meanings as it relates to railroads. In addition to the slope of the line, it also refers to the prepared "graded" roadbed, bridges, trestles, tunnels, and other infrastructure as a whole on which the tracks are laid. (Centpacrr (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

I've been pondering various "only ..." type wordings over in my mind. I think making a comparision to project that have come before (earlier in history) is valid, but less so when making comparisons to projects that haven't happened yet (in history). So, I think noting that "...the FTR is 1800 miles (20× the length) of the earlier/previous XYZ..." is a valid comparison to make, on the FTR article;

...but I'm unsure if it's right to pass judgement over an earlier engineers' choice to take a different/shorter route earlier in history. I'll try to mull it over a bit more, but I think that it may be useful to add a sub-heading/discussion further down the article (—for completeness, I myself don't have much of a preference). —Sladen (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The reference is to the timing of the claim that the Panama Railroad was a transcontinental railroad which came long after it was built and was made in relation to the FTR from New York to San Francisco. As noted in the 1855 clipping reporting its opening, the Panama Railroad was referred to at the time as the "Inter-Oceanic Railroad" so the FTR comparison made later is chronologically appropriate. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

Yup, happy with that. Just for clarity:

1. I'm not interested (concerned) about Inter-/trans-/foo-/claimed/anything/naming.
2. I am interested that the railway is not degraded in its significance of the period.

(I do appreciate what came later was bigger-better-longer, but the Panama Railway was the achivement of that time).

So I'm trying to seek to avoid wordings in the style of "...only 50 miles [..] compared to railways which [..] would be built 10-20years later...", (in the introduction). —Sladen (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)